MOVING BASEBALL’S ALL-STAR GAME: THE DILEMMA OVER BOYCOTTS

When Major League Baseball pulled this year’s

All-Star game from Atlanta in protest of Georgia’s restrictive new voting law and moved it to Denver, the decision provoked a debate that divides both

defenders and opponents of the law. That debate pits those who see MLB’s decision, and potential boycotts by other corporate entities in Georgia, as a powerful tool in the fight for voting rights against those who lament the loss of income by black and

brown businesses and employees from events like the All-Star game.  MLB’s summer classic annually produces $84 million in economic activity. Cobb County, Georgia had expected $100 million in tourism revenue from the game.

 

The Rationale

Certainly, some saw MLB’s decision as an easy call. Those in that camp argue boycotts bring pressure on legislators who pass laws like the one in Georgia to undo the damage by repealing or modifying the measure. They point out the goal is getting decision makers to enact policies in the best

interest of the boycotters (or, in this case, black and brown citizens potentially disenfranchised by the election law). Sometimes, boycotts mostly serve the purpose of discouraging others from the behavior being protested. MLB’s move of the game, and potential action by other corporations, could dissuade other states from going down the same road (over 40 states have similar bills pending in their legislatures).

Advocates of actions like MLB’s argue boycotts represent a form of political warfare. Wars produce

casualties. Boycotters, as other warriors, do a cost benefit analysis about the value of what they might win in the war when compared with the likely losses. As Woodson reminds us, destroying public transportation wasn’t the goal of

the 1955 Montgomery bus boycotters; they just wanted better transportation services for African Americans in that city. Labor unions that utilize boycotts of a business in their organizing activities aren’t out to destroy the business, they just want better wages and/or working conditions for their members.   

 

The Other Side

Despite the force of these arguments, this debate has two sides. In the Georgia situation, opponents of moving the All-Star game note that small businesses and employees like stadium vendors and parking lot attendants will lose financial opportunities as a result of the game leaving Atlanta. Many, no doubt, are the very people who need the Georgia voting law repealed or modified, as it will impact their communities most.

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, a strong advocate

of the law, pushed this argument. Kemp said black and brown vendors who lose money this summer can blame Democrats, like President Joe Biden and his likely opponent in his race for re-election next year, former state Representative

Stacy Abrams. Kemp has hardly been a friend of black voters in Georgia, so his “support” of black businesses probably requires a sizeable grain of salt.

Abrams, however, is another matter. Despite expressing her “respect” for boycotts, Newsweek reported she tried to stop MLB from pulling the All-Star game from Atlanta. The magazine said she talked with a high MLB official and urged that the game remain there. She later issued a statement that said she didn’t want to see “Georgia families hurt by lost events and jobs.” Whatever political motivation Abrams might have had for coming down on the issue as she did, her action represented the thinking of some progressives as well as of conservatives.   

Corporate Dilemmas

The pressure on corporations to take a stand on issues like the Georgia voting rights law puts them

in several binds. First, they must consider the possibility of boycotts by progressives who oppose legislation like the Georgia bill. Coca-Cola, for example, certainly wouldn’t

enjoy a boycott of its products by blacks and browns who want the law repealed or changed. On the other hand, siding with opponents of the law risks alienating conservative supporters of such measures. Already Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) has worn out the airwaves complaining about “woke corporations” that express support for progressive legislative actions.  

To some extent, corporations and their supporters in legislative and judicial halls, created this dilemma. They’ve argued, as the Supreme Court in effect said in the Citizens United case, that corporations are people too. If that’s the case, they’re subject to the same pressures as every other actor on the political stage, meaning they’re accountable for the disproportionate power they have in our society due to their wealth and political influence.  Boycotts may just become part of the cost of doing business.

 

A National Solution

Congress has under consideration the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, a comprehensive bill  that

would fix many of the problems the Georgia law created and head off at the pass many measures now under consideration elsewhere.  Corporations could support a national voting rights standard, arguing that’s better for the country than the hodgepodge of laws we have now.

Abrams isn’t alone in opposing bills like the one in Georgia, while seeing the potential detriment to black and brown citizens who suffer economic harm as a result of well-meaning civic actions. The Georgia debate simply kicked off the fight over this issue. It’s thorny and implicates differing interests. It’s the kind of thing some see as easy. Others believe reasonable minds could reach different conclusions.  What’s your thought? 

                

                                                             

WHAT’S THE MATTER WITH TEXAS?: THE DISASTER SHOULDN’T HAVE HAPPENED

Many Americans couldn’t help noticing the incongruity between the recent landing of a powerful rover on Mars while millions of Texans  struggled with freezing homes, burst water pipes, and disruptions in supplies of food and other commodities. We note the Mars landing was a project of the federal government, while the disaster in Texas resulted from policies of the state government. 

                                           

The Texas catastrophe drew our interest because one of us lives there and we found the suffering of so many of our fellow citizens revolting.  More than 50 people died at last count. That’s unacceptable, given our understanding of why it happened. Like the toll from the pandemic, much suffering could have been avoided with a more compassionate, attentive government focused on human needs.

The Roots of the Disaster

We’ve alluded at various times to Thomas Frank’s What’s the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America. The book shows how

Republicans capitalized on social and racial issues in getting lower and middle income whites to vote against their economic interests to the benefit of big business. That’s a lot of what caused the Texas disaster. For years, Texas Republicans, in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry and utility interests, neglected imposing regulations that could have prevented the equipment failures that caused the electrical system breakdowns. These politicians, preaching the gospel of deregulation, didn’t heed warnings from a decade ago that electrical generating facilities in Texas needed weatherization. The power producers preferred not spending the money  and politicians

didn’t make them do it. They insulated themselves by harping on culture-based issues that kept the majority of Texans voting Republican.

Texas operates its own electric grid which serves about 80 per cent of the state. The federal government doesn’t regulate that grid.  Texas, therefore, can’t access electricity from neighboring states in an emergency.

When the freeze occurred, Republican

heavyweights like former Governor Rick Perry, energy secretary in the Trump administration, advanced the suggestion Texans would trade a few more days without electricity so they could avoid federal regulation. Rob and other Texas residents said, “Speak for yourself, Mr. Secretary.”    

 

Rob’s Take from the Ground

I’m not a native Texan (like Henry and Woodson I was born and grew up in Arkansas), but I’ve lived here 40 years and consider it home. Though I’m proud of my University of Texas degrees and the fact three of my children were born here, I’m not proud of the brain-dead politics that created this disaster. Our state’s political leaders apparently care more about protecting corporate interests that fund their campaigns than about the welfare of ordinary citizens who found themselves burning their own furniture in sometimes futile attempts to stay warm.  

I should say that my partner and I got off easy. We didn’t lose power. Thanks to her decision a few years ago to switch to weather resistant pipes, our water supply remained intact. But I have reason for anger. The three of my children who live in Texas suffered through a good portion of the four-day emergency with little electricity or water. They got the full brunt of the misery and the blame lies squarely on state leadership.

 

The Green New Deal?  Give Us a

Break!

Texas Governor Greg Abbot, who

harbors 2024 presidential ambitions, went on Fox News during the tragedy and blamed the problems on the fact wind turbines and some solar facilities failed. He said that showed how America would fare with the Green New Deal.

Republican legislators called for more emphasis on fossil fuels. All that was disinformation.

Texas gets about ten per cent of its electricity from renewables like wind and solar. The shortfall went way beyond that. Grid operators admitted most of the problem resulted from disruptions in power generated by natural gas caused by frozen gas lines. Abbott eventually walked back the renewables statement. His dissembling didn’t help and didn’t encourage confidence in a state government under fire for a preventable human tragedy.

 

Any Hope of Change?

Public anger raised hopes for change in Texas. Abbot put several energy regulatory issues on his legislative agenda. Details aren’t clear yet, so it’s too soon to predict what might pass and what effect anything passed would have.

Many weren’t holding their breath.

Public attention in disasters, white hot for a time, notoriously fades. The 2022 election, when voters might throw out some of the culprits, seems ages away. Many other things will occupy the political space between now and then.

That brings us to two Texas politicians who took leave of the state while things

were bad. U.S.  Senator Ted Cruz, when caught heading for a vacation in Mexico, claimed he took the trip because his children besieged him to and he “wanted to be a good dad.” He flew back to Houston the day after he left, admitting he’d made a mistake. Attorney General Ken Paxton and his state senator wife found meetings in Utah they couldn’t miss.

People are mad at Cruz and Paxton, but their loyal followings remain.

By the time they face the voters again (Cruz 2024, Paxton 2022), both will likely have pivoted to the usual list of Republican boogeyman issues that have kept them and those like them in power all these years. We won’t bet against them. We wish we could.    

 

            

THE MID-TERMS: SOMETHING FOR EVERYONE?

Is the country moving from red, white, and blue to Black, Brown, Red, Yellow, and White?

People from all political persuasions could celebrate something and lament something about this week’s mid-term elections, dubbed the most important in several generations. And, they’re not over. Too-close-to-call races in Arizona and Florida, and a late November runoff in Mississippi, mean the final makeup of the United States Senate remains uncertain. Continued vote counting in California leaves the ultimate size of the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives undecided. Remaining absentee and provisional ballots, and possible court action, prevent resolution of Georgia’s historic gubernatorial race. The wild ride goes on.

Democratic Joy

Whether Democrats could flip the House got much of the pre-election attention. They did, gaining perhaps 40 seats, depending on the outcome in California where tabulation of mail-in and absentee ballots continues. Democrats picked up seven governorships, including several in the upper mid-west, where Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign

cratered. Of the states that touch the Great Lakes, all but two, Ohio and perpetually Republican Indiana, now have Democratic governors. Democratic chief executives will lead battleground states Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, likely helping the party’s 2020 presidential nominee.

Democrats can celebrate the ethnic and cultural diversity of their wining candidates. Kansas and New Mexico sent the first Native-American women to Congress. Michigan

Deb Haaland & Sharice Davids/PhotoCred: Bustle.com

   

and Minnesota elected the first Muslim congresswomen.  Massachusetts chose its first African-American U.S. Representative. New York’s 14^th district picked the youngest member of Congress ever, a 29-year old Puerto Rican from the South Bronx. Democrats elected an openly gay governor in Colorado, re-elected an openly gay U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, and re-elected an avowedly bisexual governor in Oregon.

Close doesn’t really count in politics, but Democratic hopes for the future soared because Texas senatorial candidate Beto O’Rourke took Republican Ted Cruz to the

wire, aiding Democratic state legislative victories in the process. Andrew Gillum apparently fell short of becoming the first black governor of Florida, though late tabulated votes might throw that race into a recount. In Georgia, at this writing, Stacey Abrams continues her quest to become the first African-American woman ever elected governor of an American state. These close calls provide inspiration, and roadmaps, for future Democratic wins.

Republican Success

The GOP not only held the Senate, it expanded its majority, possibly gaining three seats. Republicans ousted Democratic Senators in Missouri, Indiana, and North Dakota, all states Donald Trump won big in 2016. Trump campaigned relentlessly in those states (and in Montana, where Democrat Jon Tester barely survived). Trump also concentrated on Florida, where Gillum appears to have lost the governor’s race and Bill Nelson, the incumbent Democratic senator, trails and probably can win only through a recount. Trump’s campaigning, based mostly on fear of immigrants, held together the Republican base. Going into the 2020 election, the GOP’s dominance of small town and rural America presents the biggest obstacle for Democrats in their effort to oust Trump from the White House and recapture the Senate.

No Unmitigated Happiness

Though both parties can celebrate, both should curb their enthusiasm. Democratic failures this year make flipping the Senate in 2020 less likely, though the map looks more favorable. Democrats have a problem in senatorial races in the middle of the country (and the South) where rural areas and small towns overwhelmingly vote Republican and Democrats haven’t convinced rural and southern white voters their policies benefit them and they haven’t generated a stronger turnout in the cities. Nothing in the 2018 results suggests that problem has gone away.

In many states, Democrats faced, and did not overcome, the two – headed monster created by the disaster of the 2010 mid-terms – gerrymandering and voter suppression. Democrats may win the popular vote in this year’s House races by six to eight points, depending on the California totals. Except for gerrymandering perpetuated by Republican governors and state legislatures, many elected in the 2010 mid-terms, such a popular vote victory might have yielded 60 House seats, not the currently projected 40. Voter suppression, the other legacy of the 2010 elections, remains a problem, limiting the black vote in southern and mid-western states, and keeping Latinos from being a bigger factor in Texas, the West, and Florida. 

Republicans shouldn’t jump for joy either. Despite keeping the Senate, they lost their advantage in the upper mid-west because of defeats in gubernatorial races there. More broadly, with health care, Democrats found an issue for which Republicans seemingly have no answer, at least not one that satisfies both their donor class and citizens clamoring for expanded coverage and protection for pre-existing conditions.

High turnout of young voters (who favored Democrats by 35 points), the GOP’s perpetual problem with blacks, a Democratic trend in the fast growing Asian-American demographic, and continued erosion of Republican support from white women (who split 49-49 in House races this year, while having voted 55-43 for GOP House candidates in 2016) cannot encourage Republicans thinking about the future. Things may appear fine now with Trump and his base firmly in control. But a day of reckoning is coming for the GOP when changing demographics overwhelm the party, even in southern states. The razor thin wins in Florida and (possibly) Georgia might not happen in four years.

The lesson for both sides from the 2018 mid-terms: Offer leadership to more, not fewer citizens.